The New York Times repeated the unfounded claims from critics that Obama Surgeon General nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy is "antigun," without adequately explaining how Vivek's views on firearms are mainstream within the medical community.

As Murthy's nomination for Surgeon General moves towards a vote in the Senate, which may now be delayed, the National Rifle Association and its allies in conservative media are advancing the false narrative that Murthy is "radical" and "anti-gun" because he views gun violence in the United States as a public health concern and supports allowing doctors to ask patients about gun ownership, among other gun safety measures.

In a March 14 article, the Times devoted significant space to attacks on Murthy while only briefly noting that his views reflect those of many Americans. The article noted that an NRA message to supporters claimed that Murthy is "President Obama's radically antigun nominee," and also mentioned that a Democratic senator had received letters from constituents "who say they are alarmed by what they believe are Dr. Murthy's antigun views."

It took until the 14th paragraph of the article to note that Vivek's views on firearms are "in step with where many Americans stand on gun control," and the article made no mention of the fact that Vivek's views on guns are in keeping with the medical community.

Each year in the United States more than 30,000 Americans die from gun violence and another 70,000 are injured in shootings. While gun homicides sharply declined in the early 1990s and have declined more slowly in recent years, the Wall Street Journalfound that between 2001 and 2011, the number of individuals who sustained serious gunshot wounds -- those that require hospitalization -- increased "by nearly half." Experts credit advances in medical technology to explain why homicides have decreased while serious gunshot injuries have increased.

Given this state of affairs, the American Medical Association has stated, "Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions." According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, combatting gun violence involves a "public health approach."

In a recent Washington Post column, a senior advisor for Doctors for America -- the medical organization Murthy co-founded that is supportive of the Obama administration's gun violence prevention agenda -- argued that Murthy's "views are far more representative of mainstream medical and public health opinion" than the NRA's.

The Times article also devoted coverage to the fact that the NRA says it will score Vivek's confirmation vote for the upcoming midterm elections, without mentioning that research has demonstrated that the NRA has little ability to influence the outcome of congressional races.

Positing that Vivek's nomination has "placed Democrats from conservative states, several of whom are up for re-election this year, in a difficult spot," the Times described the NRA as "a powerful political force in many of the states where Democrats face their greatest threats this year in efforts to keep control of the Senate."

But according to statistical analysis of House and Senate races conducted by American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman (a former employee of Media Matters), the NRA has little ability to determine the outcome of congressional elections, despite conventional wisdom in the media to the contrary.

Sharing the results of his research in a 2012 ThinkProgress article, Waldman concluded (emphasis original): "The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections. The NRA endorsement, so coveted by so many politicians, is almost meaningless. Nor does the money the organization spends have any demonstrable impact on the outcome of races. In short, when it comes to elections, the NRA is a paper tiger."

FOLLOW US ›››

TimothyJohnson
›››

Timothy Johnson is the guns and public safety program director at Media Matters, having previously spent time at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Action Project and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He is a graduate of The George Washington University.

The New York Times was forced to issue two corrections after relying on Capitol Hill anonymous sourcing for its flawed report on emails from former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Clinton debacle is the latest example of why the media should be careful when relying on leaks from partisan congressional sources -- this is far from the first time journalists who did have been burned.

Several Fox News figures are attempting to shift partial blame onto Samuel DuBose for his own death at the hands of a Cincinnati police officer during a traffic stop, arguing DuBose should have cooperated with the officer's instructions if he wanted to avoid "danger."

Iowa radio host Steve Deace is frequently interviewed as a political analyst by mainstream media outlets like NPR, MSNBC, and The Hill when they need an insider's perspective on the GOP primary and Iowa political landscape. However, these outlets may not all be aware that Deace gained his insider status in conservative circles by broadcasting full-throated endorsements of extreme right-wing positions on his radio show and writing online columns filled with intolerant views that he never reveals during main stream media appearances.